A Creation versus Evolution Discussion Using Answers in Genesis (AIG) and Other References. Dr. T.J. Tofflemire June, 2007, Modified Oct. 07

Why consider this topic of creation versus evolution? What difference does it make? Just let the scientists debate it one might say. The Bible says God created man in his own image. The atheist-material view would say he evolved from ape and all life from a primordial soup millions of years ago? The New Testament refers to the first Adam, and the creation and fall into sin, repeatedly. The stars and heavens and their majesty are also mentioned repeatedly throughout the Bible. The naturalistic-materialistic view is that this started from the big bang and evolved by chance without any design. This view often proceeds from the atheist view is that there is no God and no absolute moral standards and we are just advanced animals. Does this free us to do what we want and place monkeys in a zoo next to human aborigines? This has an advantage to the atheist of not having to follow moral laws, as long as he doesn’t get caught breaking them.

Introduction to Assumptions and Likely Bias

Some terms will be defined to clarify what follows. Naturalism is a belief denying that an event or object has a supernatural cause, and affirming the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena. Materialism is a belief claiming that physical matter and its interactions are the only or fundamental reality. Current science generally rules out God and the possibility he created the universe and life because supernatural claims cannot be easily measured, tested and repeated (p.22). To quote Dr. Scott Todd “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” (p. 22 and Nature 401(6752):423, 1999). The problem with this view which claims science to be neutral and unbiased is that, it starts with a bias of ruling out one plausible hypothesis, that of creation by God or an intelligent designer.( p 22) Operational (observational) Science uses a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, and repeatable experimentation to find out how nature commonly behaves. Some hypothesis’s can be readily tested and scientific laws verified. However many well documented events defy natural laws. Christians call some of these miracles, while naturalists would call them unexplained events or deny them. Historical (origins) Science involves interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view. The history of the distant past is much more difficult to verify. There are no living observers, with the exception of God, and big bang event would be difficult to repeat. However there are valid scientific methods and historical review methods that can be used in historical reviews. Naturalistic origins theory assumes there was no God and uses evolution and many assumptions to try to explain things, while biblical creation theory assumes there was a God and the bible documents what happened. Biblical creation and the history in the bible is one hypothesis that can be that can be studied (p 24-5). It would be logical that if most of the history in the bible could be verified as true that that creation and flood description may also be true. See Ref. 27,28 for more on the truth of the bible history.

1

Evolutionists portray the debate as scientific truth seekers versus biased religion. Another way of portraying this is a debate is of biased atheists versus truth seekers who believe it is a sin to lie. Sarfati (2003 pp.20-28 ) points out there have been many very misleading presentations by evolutionists that present distorted views, leaving out facts and sometimes even presenting falsified accounts(2003 p.28) to bolster their arguments. A prime example of this is the Haeckel falsification (2003 p. 200)(2007 p. 96). Here, a known falsified diagram was published for about 50 years in school biology textbooks as an argument for evolution (16). Also in an effort to show land animals evolved into whales evolutionists have published fish like transitional diagrams of the Pakicetus. However, this is now known to be a land animal that had four legs and walked. This misleading technique has often been used by evolutionists to fill missing links that are not proven and are often falsifications in details (2003 pp.136-146). The evidence for strong bias in a scientific journal is found in the following information and quote from Scientific American(SA): “Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural: they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms is unproved.”(2003 p.83) If one automatically rules out any intelligent design argument, even if very compelling and logical, one has an atheistic-naturalistic bias and may not be open minded to all facts and arguments. However, they appear to accept all naturalistic assumptions, even if even far fetched and improbable. Sarfati (2003 p. 10) pointed out that SA also has an agenda of pushing abortion, human cloning and population control and was biased in staff hiring. They ruled out hiring a highly qualified staff writer after finding out he believed in God and was against abortion. The editor of SA was quite political on the controversy in Kansas creation education court case, even implying that Kansas schools and colleges should screen out all applicants that believe in creation by God.(2003 pp. 10-11) Thus, SA appears one sided and biased an is open to consider only one set of science views: the atheist-materialistic ones. Another example of bias is an important false fact published an influential book “Principles of Geology” by C. Lyell. To support his assumption of gradualism in geology, he stated the erosion rate of Niagara Falls was 1 ft/yr when the observed rate at the time was 4-5 ft/yr. His estimated 35,000 yrs. of erosion of the falls has been proved wrong by history and recent geological reports. He work is thought to have strongly influenced Darwin and later theories of geology (2003 p. 28), (10). More examples of evolutionary fraud in textbooks are in Appendix 3 and are also noted by searching by the word “fraud” in the AIG site (12). See McGrath’s note of bias in ref. 29.

In most public schools it is difficult to teach the creation view. Some states have made it illegal to teach the intelligent design or creation view. A teacher can risk a lawsuit if creation were taught in an unbalanced fashion or in deviation from the school textbook. This may be due to the requirement to keep any religion out of the schools and maintain the separation of church and state and the establishment of religion clause. (11) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_educationThis does present a naturalist theory teaching bias, which tends to reinforce itself. The bias continues in college, because most funding for research grants is only available in the naturalist theory areas not in creation view areas. The new movie Expelled-No Intelligence Allowed provides a documentary of bias in colleges. College professors are fired for just once mentioning intelligent design as a theory. There is no real academic freedom on this issue. The movie noted that Hitler and his medical staff believed strongly in Darwinism

2

and Eugenics. Crippled people were gathered up and executed to improve genetics. It was also noted that strong Darwinism leads to atheism and world view strongly against any religions. This results in militaristic oppression of anyone suggesting intelligent design.

My opinion as a scientist who has written 50 scientific papers and pursued and secured research grants, is that grants are commonly offered for research within the current paradigm and very few are available outside of the paradigm. It is also very difficult to publish any article in a peer reviewed journal that goes outside the current paradigm and questions its assumptions. There is considerable inertia in the system to change beliefs. With evolution scientists greatly out numbering creation scientists, who have little funding, it will be difficult to convince the scientific community of research findings supporting a biblical creation view even if the findings have good evidence.

Quotable quote:

“Science … is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as “truth” is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time … [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm—in this case neo-Darwinism—so it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict the paradigm to get a hearing. They’ll find it difficult to [get] research grants; they’ll find it hard to get their research published; they’ll, in fact, find it very hard.”

– Professor Evelleen Richards (science historian, University of NSW, Australia), “Lateline,” Australian Broadcasting Corporation, October 9, 1998. (17)

History is full of scientists that believed in God and made great discoveries for science. Many of them did their work in a time when the church promoted learning and biblical creation of the world was an acceptable world view. Many biblical creationists love science. Most fields in science were developed by men who believed in the Bible.-Examples: Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Robert Boyle, Johannes Kepler, Louis Pasteur, and Francis Bacon(who developed the scientific method). Logic flows naturally from a biblical worldview. We were created by a very intelligent and logical God, and thus could be expected to also have logic and intelligence (H2006 p. 206). During the Renaissance the many scientists supported a biblical creation view and some early universities were founded by the church (2005 p. 34). Just because a view is widely held (the evolutionary view) does not guarantee that it is correct. One has the example of most believing the earth was flat at one period in history. The answer one gets also depends on ones initial assumptions and questions. Light is an example. One can look for it as a ray of discrete packets of energy called quanta or as a continuous wave. One can look for the quanta or for the wave; however one can not look for it both ways and find it both ways at the same time (2005 p. 45-6). A similar duality is true for electrons circling a nucleus in a atom.(Wikepedia.com- light). Again, initial observation mode and assumptions affect the result found.

Introduction to Evolution One needs to be careful how they define evolution. One could review the Talk.origions definition (18). Two divisions are macroevolution (upward change to more

3

complex species) and microevolution (natural selection and adaptive change generally within a species). Creation scientists maintain that the later is proven but not the former. Often proofs of the later are cited by evolutionists as proofs of the former but they are not. Proofs of upward change to more and more complex new creatures, from very elementary simple creatures are missing. These are the missing links that are assumed in charts (2003 p. 55, M2006 p.84). The general theory of evolution is that all life evolved from a primordial soup became more and more complex by natural selection and by random mutations. Creationists maintain that there is almost no provable evidence of this upward complexity of evolution, it is all assumed from charts of similar features. Creationists say that these mutations produce a loss of net information and make species less adaptable and only able to fit a small niche. Some recent experiments verify this in bacteria and in dogs (H2006 p.277-8). Scientists say the new species of very similar creatures have evolved that do not mate with each other, thus fitting the definition of a new species. However, this does not argue for a great upward evolution of complexity but only one variation. Biblical creation is by kinds which is a broader category than species (2003 p. 84). Evolution will be discussed further in the following section and the section on common questions and answers. Some facts from Darwin on evolution are in App. 2.

The Specified Fine Tuned Complexity Arguments

Most scientists agree that the universe and life had a beginning because they try to date it. The basic logic goes like this: The universe either had a beginning or it didn’t. If it had a beginning, then it had a cause. All beginnings have a cause. The cause was either naturalistic or by intelligent design. One can assume natural cause through the laws of nature and change, or a personal cause by intelligent design or God (2006 p. 92). Meister (2006 p.74) points out that the many scientific constants of physics and of the universe are fine tuned to just the right values to make the universe and life operate. Some of these 50 constants include the gravitational constant, the velocity of light, the strong nuclear force constant, the relative masses of elementary particles, and the cosmological constant. The probability that all of these parameters were fined tuned together by chance is so small as to be practically impossible. A more probable explanation is that the constants were set by intelligent design. A similar argument holds for the creation of a cell with its complex DNA by random molecules or creation of a working eye by chance selections (2003 p.107, 163). The DNA molecule is a double helix, something like a twin circular staircase with many steps. It is enormously complex. Francis Crick the co-discoverer of DNA concluded it was so complex that it could not have been reasonably formed by chance in the 4.6 billion years evolutions postulate for the age of the earth (K1996 p. 159). The DNA is in the nucleus which is inside the cell which itself is very complex. Two expert mathematicians made probability calculations of the cell originating by chance. They came up with a one in ten to the 40,000 power chance, making this very improbable (K1996 p.160). Sarfati (2003 p.152-8) discussed this and refuted most of the evolutionary counter calculations due to making some unreasonable assumptions. Meister (2006 p.71) summarized the argument as follows: 1. The fine tuning of the universe either happened by chance, law or intelligent design.2. The existence of irreducibly complex systems within living organisms either happened

by chance, law or intelligent design.

4

3. Neither or the above can be explained by chance or law.4. Therefore both happened by intelligent design. Williams and Hartnett (2005 p. 82) stated that chance is one of the most abused concepts in origins science, generally. The abuse scenario goes something like this: “A. anything is possible, even if it might be very improbable, B. the universe is so vast and has been around for so long, that even the most probable events become likely (or even certain); C. therefore, the most improbable events are likely to have occurred somewhere at some time.” “This scenario is false and misleading, because all events in the material world are subject to the laws of physics. Chance cannot violate the laws of physics. Miracles violate the laws of physics, but chance cannot.” Chance is not some force that can do things independent of necessity (2005 p. 83). Some naturalists counter the huge chance improbabilities and apparent evidences for design, by the anthropic principle. Anthropic means related to human beings and what we observe. It has to be that way because we are here to see it that way (2005 p. 72-5, M2006 p. 77). This is somewhat a simplistic circular argument that avoids using the view of intelligent design.

Some examples follow: Letters of the alphabet may be selected by random chance. A long sequence of letters can be selected at random and it will turn out to be complex and unreadable gibberish. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specifically organized to make sense and follow certain rules. It is extremely unlikely to be generated by random letter selection (M2006 p. 71). The natural formation of crystal salt patterns follows well defined laws and produces an independently known repetitive pattern, and is therefore specified; but that pattern will also be simple, not complex (p.71). The same applies for snow flakes which contain low amounts of non useful information (2003 p.158). If one breaks a crystal or snow flake one just gets a piece of it like the rest; however if one breaks a protein, one loses its unique functionality completely. The snowflake and crystal examples have been used by evolutionist’s to try to deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states that the total entropy of closed system cannot decrease but increases over time. Entropy can be compared to unavailable energy or uniformity. Thus hot objects shed their available energy to their surroundings and come to an equilibrium temperature with their surrounding and the available energy from temperature differentials decreases. In the universe also, energy is being used up on a slow downhill slide to equilibrium. In general, this leads to less complexity and more uniformity (M2006 p. 93). Many animals and even a simple cell are very complex. Each human cell has about 3 billion DNA codes that have to be arranged and specified just so for the human to function. The simplest cell of a self reproducing organism has about 0.5 million DNA codes which also have to be arranged just so in order to function.(2003 p. 56) Evolutionists will cite the Miller experiment of forming organic chemicals out of inorganic chemicals and high voltage electricity. Here precise mixtures of ammonia, methane, water vapor, and hydrogen were passed thru the electric arc and some simple amino acids were formed. These are precursors to proteins and a long ways from DNA. They say lightning could have passed through these substances and formed proteins and life. This is more of utilization of intelligent design, by the experimenters, because the conditions are precisely controlled for this to occur and no oxygen can be present. There is no proof of such an

5

early atmosphere with no oxygen or nitrogen. Also, the proteins formed were not very similar to proteins in living organisms (H2006 p. 287-8). One can squash a mosquito and it still has all the chemicals and proteins needed for life. What is the chance it will revive itself with static electricity by chance, before it degrades? There is a scientific principle of biogenesis listed in the dictionary, which says that life can only come from life and this is what we presently observe. Evolution of life from chemical soup violates this principle. In addition, generally only the same species is able to mate and produce viable offspring (H2006 p. 280). Comparative anatomy is used by creationists to argue that different kinds of animals (from simple to complex) evolved because they have similar structures organs and bones. Creationists would say that they are complex and unique and have different DNA formulas and the similarities show evidence of an intelligent designer who made useful parts (H2006 pp. 289-90). One could make a complexity argument from a series of airplanes from simple to complex, sitting on a runway. They have similar parts: wings, tail fins, wheels, engines, gasoline. One takes pictures of them and puts them in charts. Therefore they must have evolved naturally, without any intelligent design. However, the simple airplane has fewer parts than does the simple cell, and the complex airplane has fewer parts than does a human being(3 Billion DNA codes in each cell). We can make an airplane but we cannot make a simple cell. Let’s suppose all the airplanes are dumped in a junk pile. All the raw material for the airplanes is there. What is the chance a bunch of tornados and lightning storms could come through the pile and remake the airplanes, before they rusted into useless junk? If one rules out intelligent design completely as an explanation, one is left with the naturalist assumptions and pictures of similar parts of the airplanes. To re-form the airplanes by chance would take extreme improbability and violation of a number of laws of physics or chemistry. However that is the type of argument used by creationists for going from primordial soup to man or for going from a singularity to billions of stars and planets with life on them. Let’s explore the arguments about Cosmology next.

Cosmology or the Big Bang Singularity to Billions of Stars and Galaxies vs. Gods Design

This topic is fairly complex, but I will try to offer a summary of arguments and view from a few references (2005, M1996 and 13 wikepedia.org.). Ref. 8(2005) is excellent to read. The most common scientific theory is the big bang theory- that everything began from a singularity explosion 13.7 billion years ago. This was followed by immediate but precise inflation explosion(s). Then the hot gasses of hydrogen and helium from the explosions collapsed under gravity to form the Milky Way galaxy and star called our sun. The cloud of gas is theorized to also contain dust and rocks created from supernova explosions of near by stars. Later, the debris began the process of accretion by gravity to form the planets (11 wikepedia.org.). Moche (1996 p. 117) explained “A protostar is a star in its earliest phase of evolution. Protostars form by chance at high density clumps, inside huge turbulent gas (mostly hydrogen) and dust clouds that exit in space. Perhaps a shock wave from an exploding star (supernova) triggers the process. Gravitational contraction of the cloud and protostar causes the temperature and pressure inside to rise greatly. When the temperature in the protostar’s center reaches 10 million K, nuclear fusion reactions start” Williams (2005 pp.58, 95) questions the assumptions of the previously stated process. Physicists assume that all the matter and energy of the universe was concentrated into a

6

point called a singularity. The energy converted into matter and the matter re-condensed into stars and galaxies. This is metaphysics not physics, as the laws of physics break down in a singularity and are not well known. There is a theoretical logic problem here, in that, if there was a beginning in the singularity, what caused it? With the 50 exact cosmological constants being fine tuned afterward, doesn’t this imply intelligent design by a creator? The laws of physics say that hot gas from and explosion would just keep on dispersing or it could re-collapse back into the singularity. Precise mixed inflation is needed to greatly expand the gas cloud to the point where it was dispersed enough to form the many galaxies millions of light years apart. Then the re-clumping of gas into stars could occur. The inflation is theorized to have expanded the universe at much greater than the speed of light (2005 p.125). Once the gas cloud is inflated, the pressure with in the gas cloud is too great and gravity too weak to allow condensation into stars to occur from conventional physics. Dramatic cooling and a shock wave from a nearby supernova are invoked to give some possible mechanism for a localized gas cloud to be forced to collapse, against its own pressure. Supernovas have been observed, but no one has reported seeing a new star created near a supernova, as is theorized. If the gas cloud is highly compressed and of the right mass it will form a star and the gravity of that mass will balance the outward pressure. If the mass were too small it would again disperse, and if the mass is too great, it could theoretically form a black hole. The last few sentences, both creation and naturalist scientists agree on, as we can see operating stars (2005 p.58, 95). One of the things physicists know is that when energy in converted to matter in the laboratory, it is always created in matter and antimatter pairs. If those pairs come back together they will annihilate one another and revert back into energy. This matter and antimatter problem is not well accounted for in the big bang theory and often a discussion of it is typically not found in the big bang theory or in an astronomy text (1996 p. 158). Several other assumptions are made via density fluctuations or some other method to get the inflated gas cloud to form many different galaxies, which are large clumps, and stars which are smaller clumps, to be assembled and dispersed as they are (2005 p. 132). The patterns that the galaxies form with some being spirals, some beautiful clusters, and some irregular are not easily explained from one big uniform big bang explosion (2005 p.149). We have all see aerial fireworks displays. We know they are planned by intelligent design, not by a random chance action. If the raw materials for fireworks were mixed randomly with no planning what do you think would be the likely result? Another apparent fact has been found from current star and galaxy observations and maps. It is called the cosmological principle. This means that universe looks the same from any and every position within it (2005 p.133). This raises another question of whether the universe is finite or infinite. Most scientists believe it is finite, because it has an assumed starting time and mass from the big bang. Some scientists think that some evidence shows that our Milky Way galaxy is at the center of the universe and there are concentric spherical shells of galaxies and stars that are more remote from us (2005 p.135-6). In order to balance the universe explosion into the know universe, dark matter also is assumed with a mass of many times the known or observed matter. The ratio of dark matter to observed matter varies with the galaxy observed. For the Milky Way galaxy the ratio is about 5/1, for elliptical galaxies it is about 8/1 (2005 p.139). Planet formation is another difficult problem to explain by cold accretion from dust and small rocks but this is the standard naturalist theory. Earth is theorized to have been

7

formed about 4.6 billion years ago from a contracting cloud of gas and dust (M1996 p. 228). Scientists are not sure why the inner planets are rocky like Earth, Mars and Venus, while the outer planets like Jupiter and Saturn, are gassy. Small particles of rock and dust are not known to stick to one and another in space. There is a disc of dust and rocks circling Saturn, but the materials are not know to be accreting together. Vander Wall’s force or gravity is not great enough to make small rocks or particles stick together. Once a planet is large enough to have some gravity it will hold particles that hit it. Meteorites will stay with a planet they hit, if they are of the right size and not burned up by the atmosphere. Meteorites are generally already fused rock and are thought to have been previously fused by high temperature. If the whole earth was initially very high temperature and then, cooled, how would one explain the vast amounts of water remaining? We again have some unexplained breaking of the known laws of physics to form the planets and galaxies by the naturalist’s theories (2005 p 151-7). The numerous heavy elements on earth in the bottom of the periodic table are also difficult to explain by dust accretion, unless the dust of some very old stars and supernovas was involved. Most of the big bang emission was thought to be hydrogen and helium and a few lighter elements (2005 p. 322). Let’s explore the biblical view of creation. Gen 1:1 says “God created the heavens and the earth.” There are numerous references in the Bible to God having stretched out the heavens: Ps. 104:2; Isa. 42:5, 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, 51:16; Jer. 10:10, 51:15, Zech.(2005 p. 241). Ps. 19:1 says “The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork” This gives evidence if design as does Proverbs 3:19 “The Lord by wisdom founded the earth; by understanding he established the heavens” Gen.15:5, 22:17 Jer. 33:22, says the stars are countless as the sand grains on the seashore. A reasonable estimate might be 10 million billion stars (2005 p. 247). This number of stars from a big bang is difficult to conceive of. The Milky Way Galaxy alone is reported to contain over 200 billion stars and the universe is believed to contain 100 billion galaxies (M1996 p.139). Williams (2005 p.313) gave a scorecard comparing the big bang to biblical creation and found the logic of the Bible more consistent by scores of 4 correct for the big band to 20 correct for the creation (2005 pp.321-5). Williams (2005 p.182) theorized that God could have created the galaxies and stars at different sizes and ages of development all at once. Then due to relativistic time dilation, the star light all arrived visible on earth during the time of man’s life. Gen 1:14 says “Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years.” In Mat. 2:2, 9-10 tells of the star in the east as a sign to follow to Bethlehem to find the baby Jesus. Our calendars are built on the orbits and rotations of the earth and moon. Uniquely formed galaxies in spirals are difficult to explain by random density gradients. If they were billions of yrs. old they would be wound up and no longer appear like a recent spiral formations (2005 p.323)

Biblical Theology and Some Possible Problems to Avoid.

The Bible appears to say everything was created in 6 literal days. Gen.1:14 says that was day and night, as in literal days. The Hebrew word yom is used in most places in the Bible to mean literal days. Ex. 20:9 refers back to the creation as the beginning or the rest on the 7th day and the 7 day week. The genealogies in Gen. 5, 11 and Mathew 1 and other places give about 4000 yrs from the creation to Christ. Jesus refers to the creation in Mark 10:6.

8

(H2006 pp. 88-93) Most Bible scholars classify Genesis as a historical and not a poetic or figurative book (2002 p.3). The AIG site has a number of references that discuss this problem thoroughly (12, 15). To accommodate the millions of years most scientist hold to, theologians have proposed the gap theory and other theories that interpret the genesis account more figuratively. The gap is found between Gen 1:1-2 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep.” To try to account for the scientific reports of millions of yrs old earth, some theologians have postulated the time gap after the heavens and earth are created and during the time the earth was void. The Genesis creation story then resumes at verse 3 (H2006 p. 25). If one postulates that the universe and earth were formed here, but no life, the problems are lesser. If one postulates that life, death and fossils were present in this gap, the theological problems become much greater. Some have adopted progressive creation theory with the 6 days meaning 6 ages to square with the evolution theory of the earth and animals being millions of years old(21 p.135). Some theorized that Satan was active then and the earth weathered, animals evolved and died and a world flood (this was a flood before Noah) buried the millions of yrs. old fossils. Then God finished the creation, the fall occurred and there was a local flood during the days of Noah. The weaknesses of the gap theory were pointed out above (H2006 p.25,48). It is a weak interpretation of the biblical words, and implies an old earth, not the 6 day creation and 7th day rest. In addition, there is evidence that the Noah flood was world wide and caused fossils that are 6000-10,000 yrs. old, not millions of yrs. This would fit with the 6 day creation and the 6000-10,000 yrs. earth that AIG supports. Ham (2006 p. 51) argues that eminent theologians have studied the original Hebrew texts and concluded that the literal 6 days of creation is more clearly supported by Bible wording than the gap theory views, which were proposed to solve the million of yrs. problem. If one allows much life, death and fossils, before the sin and the fall, this greatly weakens the fall being the reason for death and the curse, and weakens biblical theology in general (H2006 p. 54). 1 Chor. 15:21-22 states” for since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” Rom. 8:21-22 states “that the creation itself shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty and glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation growneth and travaileth in pain together.” Some theologians hold to the gap theory, so there is some disagreement on this issue (H2006 pp 49-52). Williams (2005 pp.180-182) proposed a further interpretation of Gen. 1:2 “and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” This may have been the inflation of the universe or of the solar system. Relativistic time dilation as proposed by Einstein may allow billions of yrs of time to pass in the outer galaxies while only a few days passed on earth (2005 pp.180-2). Time dilation by rapid motion and gravity is an accepted fact. (Wikededia.org). Ham (2006 p. 106) pointed out that the reason for the differences in Gen. Chap. 1 and 2. Gen. 2 gives the details of the garden and day 6, but does not conflict with the first 4 days of creation. Gen. 2:4 is summary of Gen 1:

Some Common Questions and Creation Answers Using The New Answers Book (2006)

IntroductionThis section will introduce the Answers in Genesis web site (12) and summarize the New Answers book (2006). The book is a good question and answer discussion on creation and

9

evolution questions. There have been several earlier editions, so it is good to get the latest edition which includes the most recent scientific additions. The AIG organization began in 1979 in Australia and its history is on the web site. The web site and monthly science magazine (Answers Magazine, formerly Creation Magazine) is contributed to by many scientists of different disciplines. The TJ (Technical Journal) monthly magazine has in depth scientific articles on recent discoveries supporting creation. There are many books, videos and training materials that can be ordered on the site. A project of large impact was the new creation museum that opened in June near Cincinnati. Here one will can view and read about scientific displays about creation discoveries including dinosaurs and many other things. The Answers in Genesis staff was at 200 employees, according the history write up, and this does not include the new museum. The stated purpose in the web is as follows: “AIG is an Apologetics ministry dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith.-” especially the book of Genesis. On the web site, one should click the Get Answers button to get answers to many different evolution-creation issues and some apologetic questions. . Ham’s book (2006) is well documented with references, so I will now focus on summarizing the book by chapter questions. The page numbers I cite will be from Ham (2006) unless otherwise noted.Book Chapter Questions

1. Is their really a God? (p.7) This is an introductory chapter on broad questions and philosophy of creation vs. evolution. Think about it- everything has to have a beginning and many things are very complex and argue for an intelligent creator. According to the Bible the only thing that doesn’t have to have a beginning is God who is eternal and infinite. The Bible says God created the moral laws, which we largely follow today. It is logical that he also created all the scientific laws as the Bible says he created every thing that is. The universe and all creation operate on scientific laws, some of which we are still discovering. A watch requires a watchmaker and doesn’t create itself. DNA is a very complex formula that governs living things. The many complex scientific laws and created beings that exist, argue for a complex (omnipotent) intelligent designer. They don’t just create themselves out of nothing by random action. There is no good scientific proof of evolution from less complex to more complex beings, and no good proof of creatures jumping species from simple to complex species. The assumption that everything started from a primordial soup and evolved by random chance is very improbable. Dr. Spencer and Dr. Gitt assert that mutations do not add new information or explain upward evolution and DNA in animals are unique and complex.(p.14-15).

2. Why Shouldn’t Christians Accept Millions of yrs? (p. 25) The Bible says it was created in 6 literal days. Gen.1:14 says that was day and night as in literal days. The Hebrew word yom is used in many places in the Bible to mean literal days. Ex. 20:9 refers back to the creation as the beginning or the rest on the 7th day and the 7 day week. The genealogies in Gen. 5, 11 and Mathew 1 and other places give about 4000 yrs from the creation to Christ. Jesus refers to the creation in Mark 10:6. Most Bible scholars classify Genesis as a historical and not a poetic or figurative book (2002 p.3). The flood aids in dating buried fossils to be young earth (about 6000 yrs.) (p.25). The following chapters in the book also address biblical interpretation and theology: 3, 5, 8, and 20.

3. Couldn’t God Have Used Evolution? In the millions of yrs? (p. 31). 1 Chor. 15:21-22 states “for since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as

10

in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” Allowing long periods of death and evolution before the fall, upsets the reasoning and timing for the fall and cursing of the earth. With millions of yrs, we must then hold that there was a lot of death and disease and selection before the fall. Gen. 1 states in several places that the creation was initially good. If death was used early on, then this is not consistent with death being the penalty for Adam’s sin.

4. Don’t Creationists Deny the Laws of Nature? Jer. 33:25 states “Thus saith Jehovah: If my covenant of day and night stand not, if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth-” This implies God made the natural laws. God’s laws are not haphazard or arbitrary, but orderly. The law of life(Biogenesis) states that life comes from life and each after its own kind. There are no proven exceptions to this. The laws of physics are just right so the laws of chemistry would be correct so life can exist. Many of the laws are related mathematically. This argues for a very intelligent designer.

5. What About the Gap and Ruin-Reconstruction Theories? The gap is found between Gen. 1:1-2 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep.” To try to account for the scientific reports of millions of yrs old earth, some theologians have postulated the time gap after the heavens and earth are created and during the time the earth was void. Some theorized that Satan was active then and the earth weathered, animals evolved and died and a world flood (this was a flood before Noah) buried the millions of yr old fossils. Then God finished the creation, the fall occurred and there was a local flood during the days of Noah. The weaknesses of the gap theory were pointed out in questions 2, 3 above. In addition, there is evidence that the Noah flood was world wide and caused fossils that are 6000-10,000 yrs old, not millions of yrs. This would fit with the 6 day creation and the 6000-to10,000 yrs. earth that AIG supports. Ham (2006) argues that eminent theologians have studied the original Hebrew texts and concluded that the literal 6 days of creation is more clearly supported by Bible wording than the gap theory views, which were proposed to solve the million of yrs. problem.

6. Cain’s Wife- Who Was She? (p. 64). This question has been used to criticize the faith as Christian’s may not give a right answer. The 1st man was Adam and the last Adam was Christ who died for our sins. Acts 17:26 says “And he has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on the face of the earth”. Genesis says all people came from Adam and Eve. Gen 5:4 says “After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were 800 yrs; and he had sons and daughters.” So Cane had to marry his sister or a close relative. A nonbeliever may cite Lev. 18-20 where marrying a close relative is prohibited. Recent research shows there are more birth deformities when close relatives marry and some laws prohibit it. Ham (2006) points out that Adam and Eve’s genes were perfect, but over time, genes have degraded and have more errors in them. When close relatives marry the deformities from the errors are more likely to show up. Gene degradation due to errors is supported by research. Abraham married his half sister. At the time of Moses, enough errors had occurred in genes that a law prohibiting marrying of close relatives was appropriate. Life spans now are much shorter than for early people.

11

7. Doesn’t Carbon 14 Dating Disprove the Bible? (p.77). No, C14 dating actually supports a young age earth of 10,000 yrs or less. Traditionally, evolutionists and C14 daters have assumed the ratio of C14 to C12 in the atmosphere is constant. This has been recently proven not true; C14 is decaying and the ratio decreasing. C14 has a half life of 5730 yrs and is typically created by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. If the world were billions or millions of yrs old, then the atmospheric ratio should be at equilibrium. The C14 becomes CO2 and is incorporated in organic matter like plants and animals. After the plant or animal dies, no more radiocarbon is added, but the existing C14 decays. The rate of decrease of the earth’s magnetic field also supports an earth age of 10,000 yrs of less. In addition scientists have measured substantial C14 in buried coal deposits and in diamonds commonly reported by scientists to be millions of yrs. old. Almost all of the C14 should have decayed in 100,000 yrs, so how can it be tens of millions of yrs. old?

8. Could God Really Have Created Everything in 6 Days? (p. 88) Yes. This is a good read of 24 pg. and has 8 sub-questions. Ham (p.103) states that “the one day is as a 1000 yrs” does not apply to the creation literally and is not cited in that context. It also discuses reasons for the differences in Gen. Chap. 1 and 2 Gen. 2 gives the details of the garden and day 6. Gen 2:5 refers to the plants from Gen 1:11-12(p.106). Also see the table on pg. 110 which shows many differences in the order of creation between the Genesis view and an evolutionary view. It is also pointed out that thorns came as a result of the curse but are in the fossils record. The earth was greatly affected by the curse but Rev.21-21 states there will be a new heavens and earth one day with no more curse. (p.100)

9. Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth is Old? (p.113) A common scientific view is that it is 4.5-4.6 Billion yrs. old. Various dating methods with radioactive elements are used, including Potassium 40-argon 40, Rubidium 87- Strontium, and Carbon 14. Scientists typically rely on expected history in addition to the radioactive dating to arrive at an age. Because of occasional inconsistencies in the history, an expected age is needed to pre-peg the date. A number of underlying assumptions are made to do the dating. Scientists from the RATE group have published articles on the results of samples of new lava from Mount St. Helen’s and from Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand. When the samples were submitted to reputable dating labs, they got back ages ranging from .27-3.5 million yrs. old. The samples were known be very recent lava flows. This shows the possible gross inaccuracy and undependability of radio-dating. In addition, the RATE group took samples of supposedly old earth granite formations and did calculations based on U238 radioactivity and helium decays, and found an age of 4000-8000 yrs. which is about the age of the earth in Genesis.

10. Was There Really a Noah’s Ark and the Flood? (p.125). Yes. 2,000-16,000 animals would have been taken to depending on whether a family or smaller classification was taken. Juvenile animals would likely have been taken, including dinosaurs. They could have fit in the 450 ft long by 75 ft wide, by 45 ft high ark. Some animals could have been in hibernation during the trip. The water came from the heavens and from the great deep (Gen. 7:11). The present earth shows canyons like the Grand Canyon that could have been eroded by the flood and many sedimentary deposits containing fossils which were buried

12

by the flood. Some layers of sedimentary strata extend great distances and could have been deposited during a great flood and earth changes.

11. How Did the Animals Spread all over the Earth from Where the Ark Landed? (p.121) Some animals could have floated on logs from dead tress from the flood. Other animals could have traveled over land bridges that formerly existed. Austin (p.192) claimed that an ice age followed the flood as did separation of the one continent into many. See Q. 14, 16. This could also have provided bridges or floats and can be used to explain odd fossils in sediments containing both hot weather and cold weather species in the same area. The climate change and lack of food during the ice age could have caused animals on certain land areas to die out. This might answer the sticky questions of how animals like the kangaroos got to Australia and were somewhat isolated.

12. What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs? (149). This chapter is 30 pages and is an interesting read. The traditional view is that dinosaurs evolved 235 million yrs ago and then died out 65 million yrs ago. There is a lot of evolutionary theory, press coverage and even toys with dinosaurs. It was not until 1841 that the word dinosaur was used after some fossil finds, so one would not expect to find this word in the Bible. Genesis 1:21 talks about great sea monsters. Some authors have translated the word as dragon. Psalm 74:13 and Isaiah 27:1 mention sea monsters or dragons. Isaiah 30:6 mentions a flying serpent (flying dinosaur or Pterodactyls). Job 40:15-24 describes a behemoth which had a tail like a cedar and could have been a Brachiosaurus. Other literature and history describes dragons which men fought. Some scientists from the Univ. of Montana found some T. rex. Bones that appeared not totally fossilized and somewhat fresh. They reported finding some red blood cells and heme. If these dinosaurs were hundreds of million yrs. old, they should not find blood cells, as they should have degraded. Un-fossilized duck billed dinosaur bones were also found in Alaska. If they are so old, how would they remain un-mineralized? Fossil formation requires sudden burial. Otherwise the animal is eaten and decays quickly. Many evolutionists now say that the periods of sudden burial were interspersed by millions of yrs. The worldwide flood is a good explanation of massive sudden burial, especially when the layers are kilometers thick. AIG maintains that younger dinosaurs would have been taken on the ark and eaten mainly plant food and could have become extinct through lack of food or climate changes as for other extinct animals. In the 1990s explorers in Nepal found elephants that had many features of mammoths. Cave paintings by Native Americans seem to depict dinosaurs. Scientists accept mammoth drawings in the cave, so why not the dinosaur drawings? Evolutionary indoctrination and bias is the reason. An example of this bias was found in a 1997 sign at the Cincinnati zoo; “Dinosaurs went extinct millions of yrs. ago- or did they? Birds are essentially modern short-tailed feathered dinosaurs.” A number of evolutionists had just theorized that dinosaurs evolved into modern birds. There were a lot of press and magazine articles on this. Other scientists later proved them wrong. Birds are warm blooded. Reptiles and dinosaurs have been shown to be cold blooded and there is no good link between them. Dinosaur feathers have never been documented. This has not been covered much in the press. This is an example of bad and exaggerated science. Ham (2006) asks what difference does it make, why argue about it? Allowing millions of

13

yrs. in the fossil layers, means accepting, death, bloodshed, disease, thorns and suffering before Adam’s sin. The Bible teaches this was the consequence of sin.

13. Why Don’t We Find Human and Dinosaur Fossils Together? (p.178). Vertebrate fossil finds are very rare, but Dr. Carl Baugh of the museum in Glen Rose, TX., has documented dinosaur and human foot prints together in Paluxy River Sediments (19). Humans and Dinosaurs may have chosen different areas to live.

14. Can Catastrophic Plate Tectonics Explain the Flood Geology? (p.186).Yes, Austin (2006 p.192) developed a 3D supercomputer plate tectonics model that explains the migration of the continents and a great flood, and new mountains. This is very technical but interesting. You may have heard that the continents can be fit together roughly like a jigsaw puzzle, implying that there may have originally been one big continent. Most geologists have held to very slow plate creep and uniformitarian assumptions over millions of years. (2006 p. 193). Evidence indicates that all the worlds’ continents were once joined together into one huge super continent called Pangaea, which later broke up (M1996 p. 229). The new Austin model offers theorized explanations of the continent spread, ocean trenches, the mountains, and the ice age. Massive earth movements and extensive volcanism and warming of the seas were proposed during the flood. Some geologists have challenged the uniformitarian assumptions and note exceptions like the following: 1. Polystrate fossils, like trees and animals of some length, buried vertically in layers of sediment that are dated millions of years apart. 2. Some fossils which are supposedly much older, buried in layers of sediment above the younger fossils which are buried deeper. 3. There is a lack of transitional fossils in the successive sediment layers. 4. Smooth bending of sediment layers have been observed, when one would expect very old solidified layers to break and not bend. 5. There are many animal track fossils which should disappear in millions of yrs. (Ref. 12). Chapter 16 on the ice age fits with this chapter.

15. Don’t Creationists Believe Some Wacky Things? (p.198) This has 7 sub-questions. I will touch on 4 and 7. 4. They take the Bible literally. No, not always. We should use context, content, comparison and literary style. Some passages are poetic or figurative and are not to be taken literally. 7. Biblical creationists are anti-science and anti-logic. Biblical creationists love science. Most fields in science were developed by men who believed in the Bible.-Examples: Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Robert Boyle, Johannes Kepler, Louis Pasteur, and Francis Bacon (who developed the scientific method). Logic flows naturally from a biblical worldview. We were created by a very intelligent and logical God, and thus could be expected to also have logic and intelligence. From a completely materialistic perspective, logic and thought is immaterial and only a chemical reaction in the brain. Thus perception and logic can be from random processes and has nothing to do with absolute truth. What one sees or discovers in the world varies with how one looks at the world and what questions he tries to answer: A. Through the initial viewpoint (glasses) and assumptions of biblical creation, or B. Through the initial glasses and assumptions of a material-naturalist who believes there is no God and man has to have evolved from a primordial soup. Most scientists use the B glasses and research questions to support B and very few use the A glasses and questions to do research. I believe that it is common sense that this results in considerable academic bias of B against A.

14

16. Where Does the Ice Age Fit? (p.207). The secular scientific view is that there were 4 or more ice ages over millions of yrs. ago. An astronomical model postulates this was caused by changing orbital geometry of the earth. However, there is no well proven theory of what caused the ice ages. Ice cores do show repeated snow and ice layering mixed with some volcanic ash particles. The AIG view by Oard (2006 p.212) stated that there was one ice age of 500 or so yrs. with repeated deposition cycles and this followed the flood. This was followed by 200 yrs. of melting. This view correlates with the Austin supercomputer plate tectonics model previously discussed. This predicts the spreading of the one land mass into the new continents we have today. It was accompanied by considerable volcanism and by warming of the sea by undersea lava flows. It is logical that a warmer sea and cold land, with reduced sun, due to ash clouds, could explain a lot of precipitation that fell as snow and compressed to ice, forming the glaciers. The AIG view is that the glaciers melted over about 200 yrs. making the ice age 700 yrs. long, and after the flood (500 yrs. of mainly deposition and 200 yrs. of melting). Some scientific articles have been published on this by creation scientists. The book of Job 38:29-30 includes a possible reference to the ice age written after the flood. “From whose womb comes the ice? And the frost of heaven, who gives it birth? The waters harden like stone, and the surface of the deep is frozen.” AIG maintains that the many wooly mammoth bones and remains in Siberia, Alaska, and Canada are explained by loss of food source in the later parts of the 500 yrs. deposition period. The mammoths’ remains are not as easily explained in the traditional millions of yrs. ice age. AIG also theorizes that the reason the ice age is not discussed more in the Bible is that Israel was not greatly affected by the ice deposition and glaciers which were far to the north. See Snelling, A. “A Catastrophic Breakup” Answers Vol 2 #2, p.45-8, 2007

17. Are There Really Race Differences? (p.220). “Darwinian evolution was and still is an inherently racist philosophy, teaching that different groups or races of people evolved at different times, so that some groups are more like there apelike ancestors that others. Australian Aborigines, for instance, were considered the missing links between the ape like ancestor and the rest of mankind. This resulted in terrible prejudices towards the Aborigines”(p. 221). The Bible teaches that we are all of one blood. (Acts 17:26) We are all related, as all descended from the first man, Adam, who was created in the image of God. Scientists have determined that about .01% of our genes accounts for the features that determine what we call race- skin color and eye shape, mainly. AIG maintains that Adams genes had all the information needed for the present skin and eye variation we see. All people’s skin contains some melanin and the genes that cause it are caused by paring in various combinations. The guidance in scripture is that Christians and non-Christians should not marry, and there is no prohibition of interracial marriage.

18. Are ET’s and UFO’s Real? (p. 237). AIG maintains the aliens and UFO’s are not biblical and there is no method for aliens to be saved. Genesis points out that Earth was created on Day 1&2 and the stars sun and other planets on day 4. AIG questions the existence of UFO’s and Aliens.

19. Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe is Old? (p.245). The big bang theory has the same time problem of sharing light between remote objects at different temperatures to

15

come to the same temperature in deep space. In the big bang theory, the universe is billions of yrs. old. Einstein’s theories say that time is slowed by motion and by gravity. If an object moves very fast, its time is slowed down. One must consider either universal time or local time. An analogy is given of a plane traveling west leaving at 6 pm in one time zone and arriving at a westerly location at 6 pm in another time zone. Light traveling towards earth is like a plane traveling west, it can arrive at the same time it left, if measured in cosmic local earth time. The naturalism theory is that the same laws that operate the universe, created it. This has a logical problem in that there may many different or unknown laws that created the universe, relative to the known operating laws. The biblical view is that supernatural laws (God) created the universe out of nothing (Heb 13:3). Christians believe that the resurrection of Christ and other healings and miracles were supernatural. There are other evidences for a young universe: We see rotating spiral galaxies that cannot last billions of yrs because by that time they would be twisted up beyond recognition. We see hot blue stars that cannot last billions of yrs. We see decaying magnetic fields, which if had decayed for billions of yrs., would have almost no magnetic strength.

20. Does Jesus Say He Created in 6 Literal Days? (p. 255). Ham reviewed some scriptures including Col. 1:16-17 which says “For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him and he is before all things and in Him all things consist.” Also Jesus refers back to the teachings of Moses as bring true.

21. How did the Attack-Defense Structures (DAS) of Animals Come About? (p.259). Here the claws and sharp teeth used by carnivores are referred to, along with others like poisons. AIG gives 2 possible explanations: (A) The present features were not originally used for that purpose. (B) The DAS features were brought in by God after the fall. AIG gives the biblical interpretation that the creation was initially very good and animals were vegetarian. Bears have sharp teeth but eat a lot of vegetarian things where they use their claws. After the fall, the serpent, other animals and the ground was cursed (Gen. 3:14-19) AIG admits that the arguments are not completely satisfying. We may need to say here that we don’t know the complete answer.

22. Is natural Selection the Same as Evolution? (p. 271) (No, evolution is the theory that all life is descended from one or several ancestors on earth 3-4 billion yrs ago. Natural selection is descent with modification that does not produce new or more complex information. For example different species of dogs are believed to have developed thru natural selection-long haired, short haired, different sizes, etc. If short haired dogs are put in a cold environment they will die out. However there is not evidence that a dog evolved into a cat. Similarly bacteria do develop resistance to certain antibiotics, but do not become super-bacteria or viruses. For example H. pylori bacteria can develop a mutated DNA and become resistant to some antibiotics. However if the antibiotic resistant H pylori is put back in a culture medium with no antibiotic and the original H. pylori, the antibiotic resistant strain dies out. It is not a super strong strain that can survive anything. Mutated organisms or selected animals are developed to fit a small niche; they are not powerful

16

generalists that can do any thing. There is no evidence of upward evolution to more complex new kinds.

23. Hasn’t Evolution Been Proven True? (p. 283) No. Although evolution theory has been applied to several fields including stellar, chemical and biological evolution, there is not good proof for any. The Bible does not support evolution and has a much different order of created things than do naturalists. Evolutionists teach that nothing became something and exploded in the big bang to the universe. How can nothing create something as complex and beautiful as the universe? Evolutionists also cite the Miller experiment of forming organic chemicals and some amino acids out of inorganic chemicals. He took a mixture of ammonia, methane, water vapor, and hydrogen and passed an electric current through it and created some amino acids. This is cited in colleges as how life began by lightning through chemicals. This has the following weaknesses: There is no proof the same gasses were present in our early atmosphere. If oxygen were present, no amino acids would be formed in the Miller experiment. However, oxygen is need for most life. This is still not proteins or DNA which are very complex. Comparative anatomy is another science that is used to prove animal evolution. Bones and organs do have similarities between different animals. Evolutionists say this proves they evolved from common ancestors. Creationists say it just proves they had a common intelligent designer. Pg. 293(1) gives a chart evolutionists use for ape to man evolution. There are still a number of missing links. “Racist attitudes fueled by evolutionary thinking were largely responsible for an African pygmy being displayed along with and orangutan in a Bronx zoo.” (1 p. 221). The pygmy is just a small human.

24. Did Dinosaurs Turn into Birds? (p.286). No. There is no method to turn scales of reptiles into feathers and little to no evidence of feathers in Dinosaurs. The avian and reptile lungs are very different and the birds are warm blooded. An ancient bird fossil called an Archaeopteryx is dated to have come before Dinosaurs. Also see Appendix 3.

25. Does Archaeology Support the Bible? (p.306). Yes some ancient manuscripts and artifacts support the history described in the old and new testaments. See Appendix 3.

26. Why Does God’s Creation Include Death and Suffering? (p. 325). Mitchell (pp.328-30) points out this is a result of the original fall, and the curse. Also God may use suffering as a reminder that sin has consequences and as a call to repentance. Newman (5) gave some other advice and answers. Try to find out what is behind the questioners words. Are they angry and hurt? Are they antagonistic? Are they philosophical? The answer given would vary with the individuals need. For some one who is hurt, find out about their hurt and show empathy. For someone antagonistic ask “Do you really think anyone knows why such things happen?” Let’s say someone could answer your question. Would that really help?” Answers in scripture include: Man was given free will and can sin or be evil: God is sovereign and no one knows all of His reasons. Sometimes apparent evil works for good, later. The fall, the curse and sin created continuing problems. Kennedy (1996 p. 173-4) added that God created the world good and Adam’s sin brought on suffering and the curse. All are sinners are deserving of condemnation and it is only by grace that we are

17

saved. If God stopped all suffering, he would also stop all indicators that something was wrong in the world and would have to stop free will.

Some Possible Answers to Some Evolution Counter Arguments

From: Answers Department To: James Tofflemire Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:24 AMSubject: RE: Scientific Question

Dear James,

Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis.  One thing to realize about Talk Origins (TO) is that it is not a site with technical peer-reviewed material.  Many of their technical articles have never been peer-reviewed and even contain extensive amounts of speculation. 

Because of this, one needs to be discerning when reading their articles to divide facts (2 Timothy 2:15) from personal opinions/interpretations.  Use these same facts and interpret them with the biblical presupposition as opposed to evolutionary presuppositions.  Here is a great article on this:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/bullet.aspSo be wary of their claims and conclusions and check every fact all the way back to a single source document and as well as their logic.  Please take some time to review an article regarding Talk Origins:

http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp (18)

I pray this helps and have a great day, God bless.

In His grip,

Bradley JonesAnswers Representative

I wrote the following after a brief read of Talk Origins- T. J Tofflemirehttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

The following statements are quotes from the above web site. “Creationists are involved in wild fishing expeditions” , “Dr. Hovind knows next to nothing about C14 dating” , “Keep an eye on those creationists! They will switch tracks faster than you can say tiddlywinks.”

If Talk origins.org is such an objective scientific web site why do they frequently use such name calling, ridicule and put down arguments as above? If their scientific arguments are so good and they are so academic, they shouldn’t have to resort to such arguments. I found these in a 15 min. read of the following link above. I haven’t seen such put down arguments in such great frequency in Answers in Genesis.org. The evolutions would argue that AIG is biased and not science based. Could it be that the evolutions are the ones biased and ready to dismiss any AIG argument out of hand with ridicule? One of the 10 commandments is not to lie and I believe dedicated Christians and AIG staff would try to follow it. An atheist with an evolutionary belief may have no good basis for right and

18

wrong and may not hold to a firm presentation of truth. Some creation arguments have been proven wrong with recent science and the AIG site acknowledges this. They have a web write-up and reference on “creation arguments that should not be used.” I have not seen a comparable write-up on the talk origins site of their arguments, which by later science, were proven wrong. An example of continued perpetration of scientific fraud by an evolutionist Ernest Haeckel on diagram of an human embryo was discussed previously in the bias section (2003 p. 200), (16) In spite of the fact that a number of scientists showed the drawings fraudulent, it was been a widely used diagram published in high school biology textbooks for about 50 yrs and up to about 1992. These drawings were used as facts and as arguments for evolution (16). Other examples of evolutionary fraud and deception in textbooks are noted in Appendix 3.

Some Possible Uses of the Material.

I believe the Answers in Genesis site (Ref. 11) is a powerful tool in that one can refer a questioner to the site and tell them to click on get answers to answer many questions they might ask. The book (H2006) is also useful to loan to a questioning friend. I have loaned my book to 3 friends and each has come to at least the following conclusion: There is a plausible, and even scientifically supported, creation explanation to counter evolution, for most questions. It then becomes more of a question of which view does one believe and what assumptions does one make? Even evolutionists have to make some initial assumptions, some of which are very weak. I believe, that each who read the AIG book had their faith strengthened. In my opinion, many people are curious about answers to such creation questions and the interest and discussion is more easily started in an office setting, than would a discussion of a question like “are you saved?” One can refer a person to a scientific book or web site, and this is generally considered acceptable. There are several web sites on Intelligent Design and on Creation Moments that are on the radio. I don’t think they have the long history or depth of research that has gone into the AIG site. A seminar, debate or table at a college on the topic or creation vs. evolution would usually draw large interest. Beliefs are very common, even among Christians, in many misleading books, publications and TV broadcasts stating that macroevolution is proven, and fossils are million of years old. I was in a church of 400 members, which had a very successful Old Testament Bible class that used the AIG materials and shot many holes in these evolution assumptions. About 20-30 members attended the class. At the end of the class, a sermon was given before the whole congregation, in a question and answer interview format. This caused some stir in the church and considerable after discussion, as many people’s beliefs were challenged. I was at a second weekend seminar put on by AIG but held at a local church in Jacksonville, Fl. This seminar was very successful with both programs for the children and for the adults being held simultaneously. AIG has small pamphlets for handout that can be given out on various proofs of creation topics. There are times where discussion on creation facts can be brought into conversations. This can be done with dinosaur toys or movies and with programs or discussions of geology, astronomy, biology or nature. Ham points out that our culture has been indoctrinated in the secular evolutionary philosophy and that considerable reeducation is needed (H2006 p 345). Questioning the proofs of the philosophy and pointing out obvious inconsistencies can be helpful (as in this paper).

19

References:

1. Ham, K. (Editor 2006) The New Answers Book. Master Books Inc, Green Forest , AR.

2. Kennedy, D.J. (1996) Evangelism Explosion. Evangelism Explosion International, Tyndale House Publishers., Wheaton, IL

3. Meister, C. (2006) Building Belief. Baker Books, Grand Rapids MI.

4. Moche, D. (1996) Astronomy, A Self Teaching Guide. John Wiley and Sons, N.Y.

5. Newman, R. “I’m Glad you Asked: How to Respond to the questions You Asked” www.Dicipleshipjournal.org

6. Patterson, R. (2007) Evolution Exposed Answers in Genesis, Hebron, Kentucky

7. Sarfati, J. (2003) Refuting Evolution. Master Books, Inc, Green Forest , AR.

8. Wilkinson, B.H. and Boa, K.(2002) The Wilkinson and Boa Bible Handbook. Thomas Nelson Publishers., Nashville, TN

9. Williams, A. & Hartnett, J. (2005) Dismantling the Big Bang. Master Books, Green Forest, AR.

10. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i4/niagara_falls.asp

11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education

12. http://www.answersingenesis.org/ http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/03/14/fishy-gill-slits

13. http://www.answersingenesis.org/e-mail/archive/answersupdate/2005/0108.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record

14. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin of_the_Earth#Origin

15. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/framework- interpretation-critique-part-one

16. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/haeckel.asp

17. http://www.answersingenesis.org/e-mail/archive/answersupdate/2005/0108.asp

18. http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp

19. http://creationevidence.org/cemframes.html

20. United Church of God, an International Assn. (2000) Creation or Evolution Thomas Nelson Publishers. http://www.ucg.org/litlibrary/

21. Erickson, M. J. (2001) Introducing Christian Doctrine, Baker Book House Co. Grand Rapids, MI

20

Appendix 1- A Biblical Model of Creation (2005 Chap. 6)

IntroductionWilliams(2005 Chap. 6) gave a 50 pg write-up on this looking for reasons God did the creation in 6 days and in the Genesis 1-2 account. A synopsis of key points in Chap. 6(2005) follow: In many places in the Bible, God wants us to praise him and give him glory: A good way to do this (generate praise for a awesome creation) was to make an awesome creation in 6 days and reserve the 7th day to rest and give thanks, as the creation was very good. Mark 12: 28-30 gives the greatest commandment as love the Lord with all our mind soul and strength. In Heb. 11:3, Ps. 33:6-9 it says- He created all things that exist out of nothing. He spoke them into existence by his word. That is awesome. The first two of the 10 commandments call for loving God and having no idols. The penalty for Adam and Eve was severe for not following God’s first commands and doubting his word. The penalty for the Israelites was also severe for worshiping idols. God also created Man is his own image and to have fellowship with him. In John 5:46 Jesus says “if you believed in Moses you would have believed in me” implying He believed in Moses and his writings. It is theorized (2005) that God wanted the creation to be awesome for early man and present man and to give evidence of God so that we would be in awe of Him. The 4th commandment is to honor the Sabbath partly as a day of remembrance of the 6 days of creation: Exod. 20:11(New Century Version) “The reason is that in 6 days the Lord made everything”. In Genesis and in Exodus the 7 day calendar is started, which we still use today. What if God created the universe in 10 seconds or in 13.7 billions yrs. as the naturalist believe? Then the 6 days with the 7 day rest would not be as good of a remembrance. If the creation time was the same as the naturalists believe, then there would be much less reason to believe in God as the creator. The first people had no street lights and may have enjoyed seeing the stars well by eye. Now we have big telescopes and the Hubble telescope which produces awesome pictures. The number of stars is also awesome as is the structure of DNA. For early man and Adam the dinosaurs must have been awesome, as was naming of all the animals. Also God could have wanted man to have a good environment to live in with the Sun and moon to give times (days, months, and years) and light and stars to admire and with the plants to eat and give oxygen to breathe, and other creatures like fish, birds and animals to see.

The Thelein FrameworkWilliams (2005) also used the thelein framework that other theological authors have cited. Thelein is a Greek word for God’s will. It has 7 categories or steps in it: Creation, Corruption, Catastrophe, Confusion, Christ, Cross and Consummation. AIG offers an easily learned song on the 7 C’s of History*. It is easy to teach to children along with a few lessons on what the 7 C’s are. * Davis, B. 7C’s of History Audio CD, AIGCreation Day 1: Sky and earth created, also the ocean and light and day and night. The light could be by God himself, as the sun was not created until day 4. Rev. 22: 5 “They will not need the light of a lamp or of the sun, because the Lord God will give the light” It is also possible that the earth was made out of water. See 2 Pet. 3:5. To give the first day and night God could have started the rotation of the earth. The Sun is not needed for day and night, only rotation of the earth and God’s light. Also God is the main source of light, not the sun and He doesn’t want us worshiping the sun as some peoples did. Creation Day 2:

21

The waters are divided between the waters of the sky and the waters below (on the earth). The waters of the sky could be a vapor canopy above the earth or above the solar system as ice. Ps: 148:4 implies the waters above the sky may still be there. The earth’s atmosphere was also present.Creation Day 3: The dry land on earth appeared and the waters gathered into the ocean. The earth’s vegetation was created. Considerable land erosion by the receding waters could have occurred. Creation Day 4: The stars in the heavens were created and also the sun and moon to make signs, seasons, days and years. This is where the heavens could have been stretched out as another of God’s miracles. Relativistic time dilation can aid in sending the light of the universe to earth.Creation Day 5: The sea creatures and winged creatures were created. This included large sea animals (including whales) and everything that is in the sea.Creation Day 6: Land animals and man and woman were created in God’s own image. Plants were noted as food for man and he is to have dominion over the other creatures.Creation Day 7: God rested from his creative work on day 7. The creation was very good and was upheld by God’s providence. An evolutionary order of creation is much different: Sun before earth, dry land before sea, and some sea creatures before land plants. However, the whales are mammals so they evolved from land animals (Ham 2006 p.284). In a God and man centered creation, the animals were created so man could observe and name them and not as a descendant of them (2005).

CorruptionWhen Eve and Adam disobeyed God, they brought on the curse of decay, suffering, and death upon themselves and the whole creation. Evidence of the curse in heaven are meteorites (stars falling from heaven in the Bible). The meteorites have struck other planets and the moon. Thorns and weeds developed. It is possible that lightning and thunder and storms were created, as there was a mist and no rain needed in the Garden. Man got a taste of what it can be like when God withheld some of His maintaining power. Man had to work and toil for his food.

Catastrophe (the Flood and the Ark ) Gen 7:11 “and the fountains of the great deep were opened and the windows of heaven were opened up.” It is possible that comets (ice balls were set loose from the upper water created on day 2) hit the earth and there was also volcanic activity and waters in the earth released, in addition to the rain. Comets could also have been a sign of the curse above. The volcanic activity could have heated the seas and increased the rain and snow. The clouding of the atmosphere with ash could have caused the ice age (Job 38:29-30). The spreading of the continents from one original continent could have occurred.

Confusion (the spread of different languages) at the tower of BabbleThis supports the Bible, since one would not expect that many differing languages unless there was some cause. The original language may have been Hebrew.

ChristThe incarnation places man and the earth at the center of creation and supports miracles.

22

CrossWhile the curse condemned the whole creation, the resurrection gave a method to redeem the whole creation.

Consummation (the end of the old world and the beginning of the new world)The stars falling from the sky, the heavens rolled up like a scroll, mountain of fire falls into the sea. Rev.:8, 8-10, Isa. 34:4; 2 Pet. 3:10.

Appendix 2 A summary of Creation or Evolution Discussion from (UCG 2000)

A number of scientists think that evolution is a dogma held up to avoid admitting God’s design, and is unsupportable when one carefully looks at the facts (Dr. Wernher von Braun, former NASA director; Dr. Louis Pasteur, developer of vaccines and pasteurization; Paul Lemoine, former director of the Paris Natural History Museum). Sir Ernst Chain, holder of the 1945 Noble Prize for Penicillin states: “To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest” (2000 p. 5). Darwin stated in his Origin of the Species, p. 149 “ If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modification, my theory would absolutely break down” (2000 p. 21). A good example is the human eye. Darwin himself explained it as one of the greatest challenges to his theory (Origin of the Species p. 146) Science since Darwin, has shown the eye to be even more complex that he thought. It is irreducibly complex and has many parts and will not function without all parts (2000 p. 17). Likewise the simple cell or bacteria is extremely complex and will not function with out all parts including the complex proteins and DNA in the nucleus. Darwin did not know how complex the cell was, as high power microscopes where not available then (2000 p.18). A number of scientists have closely examined natural selection as a mode of evolution. It can explain Microevolution (minor changes, generally within a species) but not Macroevolution (vast changes to more complex species, families and orders) (2000 p.16). A second proposed mode of evolution is by mutations. Darwin himself discounted this. Scientists have examined this and found that the vast majority of mutations are negative and result in weakened plant or a sick or deformed creature which usually dies out. An example in humans – mutating cells cause cancer and often death. (200 p 16-17). Darwin’s theory would say an animal like a giraffe could have evolved from an animal with a short neck, that just grew linger to browse on higher vegetation. However, major changes in the spine, that heart and legs were also needed for it to survive and carry its weight. Also the DNA of the Giraffe is unique (2000 p.15). The two main examples of evolution widely used in biology textbooks are the Peppered Moths and the Galapagos Finches. These are barely examples of microevolution. The observed moths in parts of England were mostly light colored and were thought to have changed to dark colored, when soot form factories covered the trees. However, facts show that both the light and dark moths existed before the factories and all

23

that occurred was a change in the dominance of populations in certain areas. So this is not even a good example of microevolution, because nothing is shown to have evolved, it was just supposed. The finches were shown to have different sized beaks on different islands. The Finches did have different sized beaks, but this is barely a change in species (2000 p.20). A second quote from Darwin’s Origin of the Species, p.164 follows: “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory” Darwin’s theory was based on competition and survival of the fittest. This brings up the topic of symbiosis where completely different life forms depend on each other to exist (2000 p.22). The Dodo bird and the Calvarias plant was an example. The bird ate the seeds and leaves of the plant and in doing so scratched the seeds. Only the scratched seeds would germinate. When the bird died out, so did the plant because it had no way to grow seeds. The lives of algae and the fungus of lichens are also closely related. The fungus provides moisture and protection for the algae, while the algae provide nutrients for the fungus. A very well know relationship exists between bees and plants that need pollination. The bees eat the plant’s nectar and pollinate the plants. The bees do this one plant species at a time or it would not work (2000 pp 22-24). Another remarkable symbiosis is between the Yucca plant and the Yucca moth. The plant is incapable of pollinating itself. The moth pollinates the plant and lays its eggs inside the plant where is larvae hatch and consume some of the plant seeds. The moth carefully chooses its egg density and number of larvae in each plant flower so as not to consume all of the plant seeds. This implies genetic design to work in a certain pattern. This raises a question of which spices was created first(in the above examples), as both are needed for survival. Design and a rapid creation can explain this, but not slow evolution. It is also common for sharks, after consuming smaller fish to have food remains and parasites embedded in the teeth. Certain types of fish function as biological toothbrushes for the shark. The shark could easily eat them if they wanted, but don’t. The same applies for the Egyptian plover and the Nile crocodile. The bird cleans the crocodile’s teeth but could be eaten by the crocodile (2000 p. 23). Evolutionary theory predicts a fossil record that would contain the following: A. Simple life forms gradually appearing. B. These life forms gradually changing to more complex life forms. C. Partially completed features such as new limbs, bones and organs. The following is found in the fossil record: A. Complete life forms suddenly appearing with no found and proven predecessors. B. Complex life forms multiplying after their own kinds with limited variety within each species. C. No proven or unchallenged (p.9) transitional links between kinds of creatures have been found. Many of the alleged transitional forms have been disproved later. D. No partial features such as new limbs, bones, and organs; all parts found are complete and fully functional (2000 p 14). E. A number of out of place and living fossils have been found which were stated in books to have gone extinct and be hundreds of million years old. They were used to date old geological layers as markers of age. However, a number of these creatures are now found living (2000 p.12). Also supposedly young age fossils are found buried below the old age ones. These are commonly ignored as exceptions by evolutionists. Many paleontologists acknowledge, that, even though many fossils have been found since Darwin’s time, the situation is now worse, with the transitional forms being largely absent.(2000 p. 11)

24

20. United Church of God, an International Assn. (UCG 2000) Creation or Evolution Thomas Nelson Publishers. http://www.ucg.org/litlibrary/

Appendix 3 Some Additional points from Evolution Exposed by (Patterson 2007) and some additional references.

21. Archaeoraptor: Featured Dinosaur from National Geographic Doesn't Flyby Steven A. Austin, Ph.D. http://www.icr.org/article/464/ http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/did-dinosaurs-turn-into-birdsA bird fossil named Archaeraptor had bird’s upper body structure with fossilized feather imprints. The tail of the bird appeared to be like that of a theropod dinosaur. There was much publicity after the National Geographic article and a display claiming this was proof the birds evolved from dinosaurs. Several scientists claimed the fossil was authentic. Upon closer examination it was found that the tail was actually from another fossil animal and not from the bird fossil. This was documented by Storrs Olsen of the Smithsonian Inst. and another scientist who found a companion section of the fossil. Despite this serious flaw and uncertainty, it is often claimed as a missing link of birds and dinosaurs.

22. Jerry Bergman www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/feathers.aspFirst published: TJ 17(1):33–41, April 2003 The quotes that follow on feathers on birds are taken form Bergman (2003). “Feathers are a unique structure found only in birds. All birds (class Aves), and no other animals, have feathers. Feathers are considerably different from scales and all types of skin, whether the skin is thin and hairy, or thick and hairless. Feathers may look simple, but they’re really very complicated. Each one can have more than a million tiny parts”. Each feather contains a main shaft, barbs, and barbules on the barbs, which act like Velcro to hold the feather together. “Each parallel barb slants diagonally from the shaft, and has numerous smaller side branches or barbules (or webs) of different types that overlap those of the neighboring barbs in a herringbone pattern resembling a miniature replica of the whole feather. The flight feather of a large bird can have as many as a million barbules.” The ‘sophisticated aerodynamic principles in the design of the bird’s wing’ include a mechanism that reduces the adverse effect of turbulence. Specially designed slots in the bird’s airfoil cause part of the air stream to smooth out the airflow, an innovation imitated by aero-engineers in modern airplanes by designing small subsidiary airfoils in the wing. The bird also can vary its wing shape and flow traits to facilitate take off, flight control, and landing. One way of doing this is by an intricate system of tendons that allows the bird to twist its feathers so as to alter their resistance to air.”

Flight requires not only the evolution of feathers, but also a total redesign of almost the entire animal.” For example, the metabolic rate and sustained body temperature are higher than in all other vertebrates. Carroll concludes that the ‘geometry and mechanics of their respiratory system are unparalleled’.61 Carroll, R., Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, New York, p. 314, 1997. Indeed, while reptiles have bellows-like lungs, birds have a complicated system of air sacs which keep air flowing in one direction through special tubes (parabronchi) in the lung, and blood moves

25

through the lung’s blood vessels in the opposite direction for efficient oxygen uptake,62

Schmidt-Nielsen, K, How birds breathe, Scientific American, pp. 72–79, December 1971.”

“Although much speculation and major disagreements exist on how feathers ‘could have’ evolved, all existing theories are ‘just-so stories’, unsupported by fossil or historical evidence. The profound evolutionary enigma of feathers noted by Darwin and Heilmann remains, even today. The lack of evidence for feather evolution is not only a major problem for Darwinism, but the design and function of feathers provides evidence for both intelligent design and irreducible complexity. Flight and feathers are indeed a ‘miracle’. Feather evolution is related to the question of bird evolution.”

The nervous system to control flight is amazingly complex- brain, muscles, lungs, tendons and feathers. They appear to be part of an irreducibly complex system. The billows style lung of reptiles is also much different than the counter-flow system in the bird’s lung (R. Patterson p. 210)

23. Burgess, S TJ 15(2):94–102 “The beauty of the peacock tail and the problems with the theory of sexual selection” August 2001 www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/peacock.asp and Patterson( 2007p. 213)

An example of intricate and complex feather design and sexual differences is found in the Peacock tail (Patterson 2007 p. 213). The male peacock has a huge colored tail with unique eye and T designs. It appears that the females select the males based on the size and beauty of the tail, but this should be a survival disadvantage to predator avoidance. The eye pattern is produced by many thousands of barbules whose development, with layering that varies by 1/20,000th of a millimeter. There are also varied iridescent colors in the male tail. The mathematical accuracy within the pattern to create the shape of the eye defies mere chance and suggests a design created for beauty. The females have smaller, more ordinary and less colored tails.

24. Harrab, B & Thompson, B 2003, http://www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp 07 Patterson (2007 p 47-48)

The story of the first human “Eve”- Out of Africa 200,000 yrs ago is now in serious question. The quotes on this story following are from Harrab & Thompson (2003) and the brief summary is in Patterson (2007 p. 47-48). This story was based on research on mitochondrial DNA in a 1987 paper in Nature. The story with Eve added has been given much “hype” in the press and on TV documentaries. “However, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) was thought to be special for two reasons.  First, it is short and relatively simple in comparison to the DNA found within the nucleus, containing only thirty-seven genes instead of the 70,000+ genes located in the nuclear DNA.  This makes it relatively easy to analyze.  Second, unlike nuclear DNA, which each person inherits in a jumbled form from both parents, mitochondrial DNA was thought to be passed on only through the mother’s line (more about this later).” To find this woman, researchers compared the different varieties of mtDNA in the human family.  Since mtDNA occurs in fairly small quantities, and since the researchers wanted as large a sample as possible from each person, they decided to use human placentas as their source of the mtDNA.  So, Rebecca Cann and her

26

colleagues selected 145 pregnant women and two cell lines representing the five major geographic regions: 20 Africans, 34 Asians, 46 Caucasians, 21 aboriginal Australians, and 26 aboriginal New Guineans (Cann, et al., 1987, 325:32). Cann, Rebecca L., Mark Stoneking, and Allan C. Wilson (1987), “Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution,” Nature, 325:31-36, January 1.  All placentas from the first three groups came from babies born in American hospitals.  Only two of the 20 Africans were born in Africa.”

To do the dating of the proposed Eve they used what is known as a “molecular clock” that, in this case, was based on mutations in the mtDNA.  “The rate at which the clock ticked was determined from the accumulation of changes over a given period of time.  As we note below in our discussion of the so-called molecular clock, if the assumption was made that there was one mutation every 1,000 years, and if scientists found a difference of 10 mutations between us and our ancient hypothetical ancestor, they then could infer that that ancestor lived 10,000 years ago. The researchers looked in two places for their figures.  First, they compared mtDNA from humans with that from chimpanzees, and then used paleontology and additional molecular data to determine the age of the supposed common ancestor.  This (and similar calculations on other species) revealed a mutation rate in the range of 2% to 4% per million years.  Second, they compared the groups in their study that were close geographically, and took the age of the common ancestor from estimated times of settlement as indicated by anthropology and archaeology.  Again, 2% to 4% every million years seemed reasonable to them. Since the common mitochondrial ancestor diverged from all others by 0.57%, she must have lived sometime between approximately 140,000 (0.57 ÷ 4 × 1,000,000) and 290,000 (0.57 ÷ 2 × 1,000,000) years ago.  The figure of 200,000 was chosen as a suitable round number.” Mitochondrial Eve is alleged to have lived in Africa at the beginning of the Upper Pleistocene period (between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago).  She has been described as the most-recent common ancestor of all humans on Earth today, with respect to matrilineal descent.  The validity of these assertions, however, is dependent upon two critically important assumptions: (1) that mtDNA is, in fact, derived exclusively from the mother; and (2) that the mutation rates associated with mtDNA have remained constant” at the stated values.  However, it now appears both of these assumptions are wrong!

“A study by Philip Awadalla of the University of Edinburgh and Adam Eyre-Walker and John Maynard Smith of the University of Sussex in Brighton, U.K. finds signs of mixing between maternal and paternal mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in humans and chimpanzees. Awadalla Philip, Adam Eyre-Walker, and John Maynard Smith (1999), “Linkage Disequilibrium and Recombination in Hominid Mitochondrial DNA,” Science, 286:2524-2525, December 24. Several recent papers, however, have suggested that elements of mtDNA may sometimes be inherited from the father.  This hypothesis is based on evidence that mtDNA may undergo recombination. And now we know that these are more than small “fractional” amounts of mtDNA coming from fathers.  The August 2002 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine contained the results of one study, which concluded: Mammalian mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is thought to be strictly maternally inherited….  Very small amounts of paternally inherited mtDNA have been detected by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in mice after several generations of interspecific backcrosses..  We report the case of a 28-year-old man with mitochondrial myopathy due to a novel 2-bp mtDNA deletion….  We determined that the mtDNA harboring the mutation was paternal in origin

27

and accounted for 90 percent of the patient’s muscle mtDNA (Schwartz and Vissing, 2002, 347:576, emphasis added).”

Now let’s explore the molecular clock. “A study that was published in 2002 pointed out a built-in, natural bias for older ages that result from use of the molecular clock.  The researchers who carried out the study noted: There is presently a conflict between fossil- and molecular-based evolutionary time scales.  Molecular approaches for dating the branches of the tree of life frequently lead to substantially deeper times of divergence than those inferred by paleontologists.” “Until approximately 1997, we did not have good empirical measures of mutation rates in humans.  However, that situation greatly improved when geneticists were able to analyze DNA from individuals with well-established family trees going back several generations.  One study found that mutation rates in mitochondrial DNA were eighteen times higher than previous estimates (see Parsons, et al., 1997). Parsons, Thomas J., et al. (1997), “A High Observed Substitution Rate in the Human Mitochondrial DNA Control Region,” Nature Genetics, 15:363.””

“Science writer Ann Gibbons authored an article for the January 2, 1998 issue of Science titled “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock,” the subheading of which read as follows: “Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics procedures and raising troubling questions about the dating of evolutionary events.” In that article, she discussed the new data which showed that the mutation rates used to obtain mitochondrial Eve’s age no longer could be considered valid, and concluded: Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate.  For example, researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial Eve”—the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa.  Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6,000 years old (1998: 279:29, emphasis added). Gibbons, Ann (1998), “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock,” Science, 279:28-29, January 2.”

25. When is a Whale a Whale?by Duane Gish, Ph.D. www.icr.org/article/379 “Speaking of whales, Colbert said, "These mammals must have had an ancient origin, for no intermediate forms are apparent in the fossil record between the whales and the ancestral Cretaceous placentals. Like the bats, the whales (using the term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications of the basic mammalian structure for a highly specialized mode of life. Indeed, the whales are even more isolated with relation to other mammals than the bats; they stand quite alone." [3]

In their eagerness to produce evidence to bridge this enormous gap, and in doing so not only to verify their expectations but also to enhance their reputations and their careers, we do not question the honesty of evolutionists. We do question their objectivity and their conclusions, based on scanty and questionable evidence. In 1983, headlines in newspapers all over the world, based on an article published by Gingerich and coworkers, [4] trumpeted the discovery of a so-called primitive whale which established a link between whales and their hypothetical land-mammal ancestor, the hoofed mammalian carnivore, Mesonyx. The fossil material consisted solely of the posterior portion of the cranium, two fragments of the lower jaw, and isolated upper- and lower-cheek teeth. The creature was given the name Pakicetus inachus.

This fossil material was found in fluvial red sediments, or river-produced deposits colored by material leached from iron ores. This formation is thus a terrestrial or continental deposit. The fossil remains associated with Pakicetus are dominated by land mammals. Non-mammalian remains include other terrestrial remains such as snails, fishes (particularly catfish), turtles, and crocodiles. This evidence

28

indicates a fluvial and continental, rather than a marine environment, as would be expected for a whale or whale-like creature. It is highly significant that the auditory mechanism of Pakicetus was that of a land mammal, rather than that of a whale, since there is no evidence that it could hear directly under water, nor is there any evidence of vascularization of the middle ear to maintain pressure during diving. The authors stated that the teeth resemble those of the mesonychids, which possibly fed on carrion, mollusks, or tough vegetable matter. On the basis of this evidence, the idea was challenged that Pakicetus was anything other than a land mammal, with no relationship to marine mammals.[5]”

[3] E. H. Colbert, Evolution of the Vertebrates, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1955, p. 303.[4] P. D. Gingerich, N.A. Wells, D. E. Russell, and S. M. Ibrahim Shah, Science 220:403-406 (1983).[5] D. T. Gish, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, Master Books, Colorado Springs, 1985, pp. 79-81.

Patterson and Sherwin (2007 p.94) noted that whales have many unique features difficult to explain by evolution(blubber, temperature regulation, special metabolism, counter current blood flow, and special up-down tail design). There is lack of consistency in the evolutionary story for whales, with some using molecular data to suggest whales are related to hippos, and others using fossils to suggest a carnivorous ancestor. Current textbooks assert that whales evolved from dog-like animals (2007 pp. 74, 253 Pakicetus)(Briggs 2006 p. 400).

Patterson (2007, p.86-87) notes that Scientific American admits in a 1991 article that there is a “chicken and egg” problem with DNA and proteins that was not solved by the RNA hypothesis. DNA requires proteins to function, and proteins are made form DNA. In order for DNA to be transcribed, many proteins must interact with the DNA. The problem is that DNA is needed to make the proteins that are used to transcribe the DNA. It is difficult to understand how such a system could have evolved by chance. Some evolutionists (p. 81-82) have noted the ability of bacterial cells to copy their DNA and have suggested this could explain the upward molecules to man evolution. However one would then expect an increase in the amount of DNA as one moves up the complexity tree from bacteria to man. However the organism with the most cell DNA is actually a bacterium (Epulopiscium fishelosni). In addition mutations (p.88-89, 92) do not generally add information or complexity. Most mutations are identified by the disease they cause. Parker (2007 p.93) notes that experiments show that bacteria already had resistance built into them, and then the trait was selected for, not created by mutations.

26. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/moths.asp Weiland, C. “Goodbye Peppered Moths” Creation 21(3):56 June 1999However, it turns out that this classic Peppered Moth story is full of holes anyway. Peppered moths don’t even rest on tree trunks during the day.

The moths filmed being eaten by the birds were laboratory-bred ones placed onto tree trunks by Kettlewell; they were so languid that he once had to warm them up on his car bonnet (hood).3

And all those still photos of moths on tree trunks? One paper described how it was done—dead moths were glued to the tree.4 University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary. He says textbooks and films have featured ‘a lot of fraudulent photographs.’5,6

29

Other studies have shown a very poor correlation between the lichen covering and the respective moth populations. And when one group of researchers glued dead moths onto trunks in an unpolluted forest, the birds took more of the dark (less camouflaged) ones, as expected. But their traps captured four times as many dark moths as light ones—the opposite of textbook predictions!7

University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne agrees that the peppered moth story, which was ‘the prize horse in our stable,’ has to be thrown out.

Regrettably, hundreds of millions of students have once more been indoctrinated with a ‘proof’ of evolution “Peppered Moths” which is riddled with error, fraud and half-truths.8 Biology textbooks dated 2006 still publish this fraud and error (Patterson 2007 p. 56, 92, 253). See ref. below (Briggs 2006, p. 397). This makes one wonder can you really trust such textbooks, which one would think are reputable works of science?

3. Calgary Herald, p. D3, 21 March 1999.

4. D.R. Lees & E.R. Creed, Industrial melanism in Biston betularia: the role of selective predation, Journal of Animal Ecology 44:67–83, 1975.

5 .J.A. Coyne, Nature 396(6706):35–36.

6. The Washington Times, p. D8, 17 January 1999.

7. D.R. Lees & E.R. Creed, ref. 4. 8. Unfettered by evolutionary ‘just so’ stories, researchers can now look for the real

causes of these population shifts. Might the dark form actually have a function, like absorbing more warmth? Could it reflect conditions in the caterpillar stage? In a different nocturnal moth species, Sargent has found that the plants eaten by the larvae may induce or repress the expression of such ‘melanism’ in adult moths (see Sargent T.R. et al. in M.K. Hecht et al, Evolutionary Biology 30:299–322, Plenum Press, New York, 1998).

9. Briggs, A. et. al. 2006 Biology: The Dynamics of Life (Fl. Edition), Glencoe/McGraw Hill, N.Y.

The examples in this paragraph call into question radical evolution over hundreds of million of yrs. Patterson (2007 p. 119) described fossilized bacteria have been found in rocks that were thought to be 3 billion yrs old, when live hadn’t supposedly evolved yet. Also in Australia, fossilized cyanobacteria have been found in rocks dated at 3.5 billion yrs old. These appear to be very similar to the same as the oxygen producing mat structures alive and 500 kilometers away in the Shark Bay. Also in a Norfolk (UK) marsh, rocks have been to form in 6 months to several yrs. From bacteria acting on rotting vegetation with sand and mud, Limestone was formed (2007 p.120). In addition, there thousands of examples of creatures living today, that are virtually identical to their ancestors that lived hundreds of millions of yrs ago. They could be termed “living fossils” and are an enigma to evolutionists. How can evolution explain that some creatures have remained unchanged

30

for such a long time, while others have changed relatively rapidly? 28. Catchpoole, D. Creation ex nihilo 22(2):56 March 2000 . Patterson (2007 pp. 121-122) also noted that the Grand Canyon that was supposedly formed over millions of yrs, could have formed by much quicker erosion. Rock layers in the Grand Canyon indicate bent layers that occurred in soft sediment. If the sediments were solid rock millions of yrs old how could they have been bent smoothly without fracturing? A canyon 1500 ft long and 120 ft. deep formed in 6 days in Walla Walla, Washington. The Toutle River canyon near Mt. St. Helens also formed very quickly.

27. Another way of confirming the validity of the creation story is by confirming the bible history itself. Kennedy (1996 p. 152) stated that there 333 prophecies about Christ made 400 yrs or more before his birth that came true. Examples include being sold by a friend for 30 pieces of silver, being pierced by a spear, but having no broken bones, having lots cast for his garments, nailed to a cross, etc. The odds of this occurring by chance are extremely rare. He also noted that their 2000 other prophecies in the bible that came true( p.155). There are many concerning the ancient city of Babylon. Records show it was a magnificent city surrounded by walls 200 ft high and 178 ft thick at the base. Nevertheless it was prophesized that the walls would be completely destroyed and the city would never be rebuilt. This is very odd in that many ancient wall remains can still be found- Roman walls in various countries and the walls of China. It is also odd that the city was never rebuilt and is a desolate area in Iraq now (p. 157). McDowell (1999 Chap. 3 and 13) noted that archaeology confirms the bible. N. Glueck stated (1999 p. 89) “Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the bible.” For example the walls of Jericho have been found fallen outward, which is odd but true (p 95). Many biblical cities and characters have been documented in other documents. W. F. Albright, a noted archeologist stated (1999 p 372) “There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of he Old Testament tradition.” An important discovery was of the ancient Elba clay tablets in Syria. These tablets confirm ancient writing, parts of the creation story in Genesis, and biblical character names and laws ( p. 375,6) Clay tablets have also been found confirming the tower of Babel history (p. 378). Some artifacts form Saul, David and Solomon also exist (p. 380). 27. McDowell, J. (1999) The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Thomas Nelson Pub., Nashville

28. Sabiers, Karl (1969) Mathematics Prove Holy Scriptures- Russian Scientist proves Divine Inspiration of the Bible Bible Numerics, Niagara Falls, Canada

Sabiers’ book notes that most sentences, and many manes in the bible follow a numeric pattern that can not be explained by chance, when one uses the original Greek or Hebrew texts. In the Hebrew and Greek alphabets each letter stands for both a letter and a unique number. Thus each word, phrase, and sentence has a numerical value. These numbers were studied for many yrs. by the original Russian author, Dr. Ivan Panin. In the first sentence of the book of Genesis it says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Using the Hebrew, Sabiers noted 14 features with the number 7, in this sentence. The probability of this occurring by random chance was calculated to be 1/68 x10 to the 10th power. Panin also studied other Greek and Hebrew documents which do not show this

31

numeric pattern. Panin and Sabiers claim this can be used to verify the most accurate sentences, texts, and even the number of books in the bible. “Many brief bible passages have as 70-100 or more amazing numeric features in the structure of the text”(Sabiers p. 53). They reason that the scriptures in the original Hebrew and Greek are divinely inspired, because it is almost humanly impossible to write meaning full sentences with this degree of numeric pattern, unless ones uses a computer with built in numeric patterns. “Furthermore there is no evidence of numerical features and designs in the very text of the Apocrypha. Thus the bible of the Roman and Greek Catholic Church, so far as the number of books is concerned is proved to be incorrect.”(Sabiers p.102)

29. McGrath, A and J. C. (2007) The Dawkins Delusion Intervarsity Press Downers Grove, Il. This book comments on the book The God Delusion by noted Atheist, Richard Dawkins.McGrath pointed out that just as some Christians can appear biased, so can radical atheist fundamentalists. The book The God Delusion “substitutes turbocharged rhetoric and highly selective manipulation of facts for careful evidence based thinking.” (2007 p. 11). A careful reader of the book will soon note the crude caricatures, prejudicial stereotypes and blatant misrepresentations. For example, Dawkins presents all religious faith as pathological and suggests bringing up a child with faith teachings as child abuse that should be outlawed. (2007 p. 21) Dawkins makes assertions like- science has disproved faith and faith is superstitious and pathological, and all “real” scientists should be atheists. Evidence such as 1916 and 1997 surveys showing that 40% of scientists believe in God, including many Nobel Prize winners in science, is ignored by Dawkins.(2007 p.43-44). Dawkins compares religious people to Hitler. However, Wikepedia notes “Hitler was raised by Roman Catholic parents, but as a boy he rejected some aspects of Catholicism. After Hitler left home, he never attended Mass or received the sacraments. According to one confidant, Hitler stated in private "The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness...."[90]. Several of Hitler's private statements contradict his public statements regarding Christianity, and indicate his difficulty in reconciling Christian and Nazi philosophy.” I would assert that Hitler was not a Christian Catholic, by definition of not receiving the sacraments, and used religious statements as a front for his political agenda.30.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Religious_beliefs

McGrath states that Dawkins does not give much discussion of world views or political fanaticism and lumps them all into religion without distinguishing them from religion. World views including the atheistic ones can easily promote political fanaticism.(2007 p.58). In fact all world views, religious or secular, end up falling into the category of belief systems because they cannot be proved. (2007 p.69). One could also argue that racism and tribal conflicts are more about race and culture rather than being based on religion. Race is a biological fact often discussed in Darwinism. “Hitler considered Sparta to be the first

National Socialist state, and praised its early eugenics treatment of deformed children.[ “Historically, eugenics has been used as a justification for coercive state-sponsored discrimination

and human rights violations, such as forced sterilization of persons who are claimed to have genetic

defects, the killing of the institutionalized population and, in some cases, outright genocide of races

perceived as inferior or undesirable.” "Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution"(30)

32

Other examples of political extremism causing violence include right wing political campaigns in Latin America, and Pol Pot spreading socialism in Cambodia and Lenin spreading socialism in Russia with a atheist agenda-the elimination of religion.(2007 p.77) Thus Dawkins assertion that wars are due to religious beliefs is shown to not be true.

Dawkins appears searching for an explanation, why so many people through history have pursued religion and suggest is as a natural virus of the mind. He then gives this virus of the mind and gives it a name “meme”. Although he talks about it as very real, but it is a made up construct with no factual basis.(2007 p.68-71) McGrath cites several broad scientific studies supporting human well being, longevity and mental health correlating with healthy religious beliefs, while Dawkins cites a couple bad examples, hearsay, and stereotyping statements(2007 p.92-3). “In summary the God Delusion seems more designed to reassure atheists, whose faith is faltering, than to engage fairly or rigorously with religious believers and others seeking for the truth.(2007 p.96)

31. The Big Brain Cosmology http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

“The basic problem is that across the eons of time, the standard theories suggest, the universe can recur over and over again in an endless cycle of big bangs, but it’s hard for nature to make a whole universe. It’s much easier to make fragments of one, like planets, yourself maybe in a spacesuit or even — in the most absurd and troubling example — a naked brain floating in space. Nature tends to do what is easiest, from the standpoint of energy and probability. And so these fragments — in particular the brains — would appear far more frequently than real full-fledged universes, or than us. Or they might be us.--If you are inclined to skepticism this debate might seem like further evidence that cosmologists, who gave us dark matter, dark energy and speak with apparent aplomb about gazillions of parallel universes, have finally lost their minds. But the cosmologists say the brain problem serves as a valuable reality check as they contemplate the far, far future and zillions of bubble universes popping off from one another in an ever-increasing rush through eternity. What, for example is a “typical” observer in such a setup? If some atoms in another universe stick together briefly to look, talk and think exactly like you, is it really you? “It is part of a much bigger set of questions about how to think about probabilities in an infinite universe in which everything that can occur, does occur, infinitely many times,” said Leonard Susskind of Stanford, a co-author of a paper in 2002 that helped set off the debate. Or as Andrei Linde, another Stanford theorist given to colorful language, loosely

33

characterized the possibility of a replica of your own brain forming out in space sometime, “How do you compute the probability to be reincarnated to the probability of being born?”

32. Dr. Hovind’s Video Series presents many arguments for creationism. http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/csehovind.html

33. Lisle, Jason Taking Back Astronomy Dr. Lisle has PhD in astrophysics, see AIG site .http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tba/splendor-of-creationChap. 1 of the book illustrates the complexity and glory of the universe.

34. Lisle, Jason “ The Big Bang God’s Chosen Method of Creation?” Answers Vol 1, No. 1, Jan 2008. Some other problems with the Big Bang theory were noted including the following: 1. Physicists theorize that a very hot big bang would create magnetic monopoles, but no monopoles are found in nature. 2. Experimental physics has created matter and anti mater in equal amounts which can soon reunite to from energy. In nature we see mostly matter and a very small amount of anti matter. 3. To explain the heavy elements found throughout the universe physicists have theorized that old population 3 stars would have mainly hydrogen and helium. Observations have shown no population 3 stars and only population 1 and 2 stars with have a small amount of the heavy elements and a large amount hydrogen a helium.

35. Samec, Ron “The Heavens Declare a Young Solar System” Answers Vol 1, No. 1, Jan 2008. Here a strong case is made that comets have a relatively short life in our solar system. This argues for a young solar system, as in and alleged solar system age of 4.6 billion yrs, all comets should have been burned up. The case is also made that the moon is relatively young as evidenced by geological activity observed on the moon. There is evidence that Jupiter and Neptune are hot and giving off energy. This would imply that they are relatively young.

36. Chaffey, Tim and Lisle, Jason Old Earth Creationism on Trial Master Books, Green Forest, AK 2008 The present rate of erosion of the Grand canyon is .018 cubic miles/yr. At this rate it would only take 50,000 yrs. to erode the canyon from the top to its present depth (p.122). Human population reproduction, at its present rate, would create our present population in 2008 in 2000 yrs.(p.127) Thus how can the earth be millions of yrs old? The rate of coral reef formation also indicates a young earth (p.139). as does the Green River Formation of sedimentary layers in Wyoming.37. Snelling, A. “Order in the Fossil Record” Answers Vol 5, 3 1, p.66-68, 2009. He notes theat a global flood explains the fossils of the Grand canyon and Grand staircase. Marine inverebrates are found first and more mobil fish and animals next in higher layers. Also the footprints of a creature are found in lower layer and the actual creature in a higher layer.

34